|
Post by rbobatar on Sept 28, 2006 4:03:46 GMT -8
YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF RBOBS POST AND FAILED TO RESPOND IN ANY SERIOUS WAY TO ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY RBOB AND RATHER SEEM TO BE DRAGGING THE DEBATE INTO PICKING THE DETAILS AND TRYING YOUR BEST TO PICK THEM APART AS IF IT SOMEHOW ADDS VALIDITY TO YOUR POSITION WHEN THEY HAVE LITTLE RELAVENCE.
RBOB WILL TRY AND BRING THE DEBATE BACK ON TOPIC WITH JUST SEEING IF THESE ARE THE PREMISES THAT YOU AGREE WITH SINCE THIS APPEARS TO BE THE POSITION YOU HOLD AS PIECED TOGETHER FROM PREVIOUS POSTS AND NEGLECTION OF RESPONSE TO RBOBS EARLIER ONES. PLEASE CORRECT RBOB IF THESE ARE NOT TRUE.
1. TORTURE IS NOT MORALLY DEPRAVED AND INHERENTLY BARBARIC AND, REAGARDLESS OF STUDIES DONE IN THE VERY RECENT PAST ON AMERICAN TORTURE TECHNIQUES SHOWING THE USELESSNESS OF TORTURE, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM HALF A CENTURY AGO PROVES THAT TORTURE IS A POWERFUL WEAPON IN THE ARSENAL OF A SUPERPOWER ATTEMPTING TO WIN A WAR OF HEARTS AND MINDS, MORE FUNDAMENTAL TO THE COURSE OF THE WAR ON TERROR THAN ANY OTHER WAR IN HISTORY SINCE IT IS AS MUCH AN INTERNATIONAL WAR OF HEARTS AND MINDS AS WELL AS A MILITARY ONE.
2. DESPITE THE EXAMPLE OF OTHER COUNTRIES PROVING THE OPPOSITE (THIS WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CANADA EXAMPLE. YOU SEEMED TO HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THIS), UNPRECEDENTED IRON FISTED LAWS STRIPPING AMERICAN CITIZENS OF MANY PRIVACY RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO TRIAL IN COURT AND NOT BEING HELD WITHOUT CAUSE ARE NECESSARY TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR.
3. YOU DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE COMPARISON OF YOUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT TO THAT OF NAZI GERMANY IN THE 1930S IN REGARDS TO THE EVOLUTION OF ITS LAWS (THINK ENABLING ACT OF 1934, NUREMBURG LAWS OF 1936). AFTER ALL, HITLER DID NOT TURN GERMANY INTO A POLICE STATE OVERNIGHT.
3. BUSH MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE IN OUTSOURCING THE JOB OF CAPTURING THE MAN WHO MASTERMINDED THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS AND THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT THAT BACKED HIM TO A GROUP OF INFIGHTING AFGHAN WARLORDS WHO WERE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT AND EASILY BOUGHT OFF WITH ONLY MINOR AMERICAN BACKING WHILE SENDING THE BULK OF HIS ARMY TO INVADE A STABLE, ALBEIT BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP (A DIME A DOZEN) WHICH HAD NO PROVEN TIES TO TERRORISM, NO MEANS OF ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY INTENTION TO DO SO (IF THAT, AN UNQUESTIONABLE WAR OF AGGRESSION AND EXPANSION, SOUNDS LIKE A WAR CRIME TO YOU, YOURE RIGHT, IT IS!).
4. A FAILURE TO LINK GEORGE BUSH TO TORTURE DIRECTLY DESPITE THE OBVIOUSLY DIRTY HANDS OF HIS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ABSOLVES HIM OF BLAME COMPLETELY, AND BY THIS LOGIC HITLER TOO MUST BE ABSOLVED OF BLAME FOR THE HOLOCAUST SINCE HE NEVER LEFT ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS AWARE OF IT.
5. THE FACT THAT NO TERROR ATTACKS ON UNITED STATES SOIL HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS IS PROOF OF THE SUCCESS OF THE POLICIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DESPITE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE SET BY THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS WHICH HAD A DECADE LONG INCUBATION PERIOD
6. INVADING IRAQ, WHICH HAS NOW BECOME THE FRONT LINE IN THE WAR ON TERROR DESPITE BEING A BARRIER TO TERRORISM BEFORE THE INVASION, HAS SOMEHOW DECREASED THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AT HOME (DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE) AND THE COST OF BILLIONS IF NOT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN AND ALLIED SOLDIERS AS WELL AS THE LIVES OF 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS AND THE COLLAPSE OF FORMERLY THE STABLE IRAQ INTO COMPLETE CHAOS IS WORTH THIS PERCEIVED (THOUGH SOMEWHAT ILLOGICAL) DECREASE IN THE THREAT TO TERRORISM AT HOME.
7. BEING A LIBERAL COUNTRY APPARENTLY PRECLUDES CANADA FROM SUCCESS AGAINST TERRORISM AND THAT THE CULTURE OF COOPERATION AND MULTICULTURALISM WITHIN CANADA DOES NOT HELP GET COOPERATION FROM WITHIN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY WHICH BROUGHT DOWN THE TERROR CELL AND WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IN AMERICA DUE TO THE ATTITUDE OF HATE, ALIENATION AND PARANOIA TOWARDS THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY THERE.
THESE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS RBOB HAS DRAWN FROM YOUR POSITIONS ON THE SUBJECT IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE TAKE ISSUE WITH IT AND EXPLAIN HOW IT IS UNREPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR VIEWS.
NOW RBOB DOES NOT WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THE SATISFACTION OF HAVING REFUTED THESE TINY IRRELAVENT DETAILS OF RBOBS ARGUMENTS HE WILL DEAL WITH THOSE.
IF TORTURE HAS YIELDED SUCH VALUABLE INFORMATION EVEN IF RBOB DOESNT KNOW ABOUT IT WHY HAS NOT ONE SUCH TERROR ARREST, POSSIBLY RESULTING FROM TORTURE-EXTRACTED REVELATIONS, RESULTED IN A CONVICTION IN A COURT OF LAW. OR ARE THE COURTS TOO LIBERAL?
THE TERROR PLOT IN CANADA WAS PERPETRATED BY A BUNCH OF AMATEURS WHO DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY WERE DOING NOR ANY SERIOUS PROSPECT OF EVER CARRYING IT OUT AND IT WAS ONLY WITH THE PRODDING OF UNDERCOVER RCMP OFFICERS THAT THEY EVER TOOK ACTION, IF YOU PAY ATTENTION THIS COURT CASE WILL ALMOST SURELY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN AN ACQUITTAL. AND CANADA'S INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN HAS ENRAGED ALQAEDA AND CANADA HAS BEEN THREATENED DIRECTLY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BY AL QAEDA SPOKESPERSONS.
IF THE CAMPAIGN IN AFGHANISTAN WAS "OVERALL A SUCCESS" WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN THE MASTERMIND OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, YOUR ENTIRE REASON FOR INVADING.
SERIOUS RECENT STUDIES ON TORTURE WHICH STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT TORTURE DOES NOT WORK AND DOES NOT PRODUCE RELIABLE INFORMATION AND NOT RENDERED NULL BY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM A COLONIAL WAR (ALTHOUGH THE RESEMBLANCE IS STRIKING) AND THE PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN.
IT DOESNT SEEM TO BE RELAVENT WHETHER OR NOT BUSH AUTHORIZED TORTURE SINCE SOMEONE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION DID AND IF HE WANTS TO KEEP HIS HANDS CLEAN OF IT HE CAN SINCE IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT HE IS AT LEAST AWARE OF IT, AND ONCE AGAIN AFTER THIS IS ALL OVER PEOPLE ARENT GOING TO CARE WHETHER OR NOT HE DID OR DIDNT AUTHORIZE IT SINCE HE IS ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN, ONCE AGAIN HITLER AND THE HOLOCAUST SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS.
RBOB DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN CALL ANY LACK OF ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL IN A THREE YEAR PERIOD EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL IGNORANCE AND CLAIMING THEN POINTING OUT THE THOUSANDS OF TERROR ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICAN INTERESTS ELSEWHERE IN TEH WORLD IN THE SAME PERIOD IS A "TYPICAL LIBERAL ATTEMPT TO TWIST THE CLAIM"
AND SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE THE VERY EPITOME OF EXTREME CONSERVATIVE THINKING RBOB THOUGHT HE WOULD BRING UP GLOBAL WARMING SINCE THAT IS ONE A CLEARLY DEFINED PARTY ISSUE (UNFORTUNATELY) AND RBOB LIKES GETTING INTO DEBATES HE WILL WIN.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 28, 2006 10:52:29 GMT -8
well the one biggest factor in that may be that our troops are in afghanistan making sure that the taliban cannot get a foothold in that country again. there may be others since we are one of america's allies, but im not sure what else since I do not think like a terrorist. but afghanistan definitely pissed them off. and it was the liberals who decided to send our troops to afghanistan, which I believe we did before the war in iraq started. First off props to rabid. Ill keep my response short so people will read rbob's latest post. For me the argument of torture being effective shouldn't even be considered. It's a barbaric practice regardless of who is doing it. And something being effective does not make it inherently "right" Nuking countries would be effective, it doesn't mean it would be right.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 28, 2006 23:01:03 GMT -8
YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF RBOBS POST AND FAILED TO RESPOND IN ANY SERIOUS WAY TO ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY RBOB AND RATHER SEEM TO BE DRAGGING THE DEBATE INTO PICKING THE DETAILS AND TRYING YOUR BEST TO PICK THEM APART AS IF IT SOMEHOW ADDS VALIDITY TO YOUR POSITION WHEN THEY HAVE LITTLE RELAVENCE. Chalupa not only responded to all of the arguments, he even quoted Rbobs entire post. Perhaps Rbob didn't read Chalupa's response? How could I be off topic when I quoted and just responded to your entire post? Is this response also off topic? I am once again quoting your post. Rbob failed to read or at least comprehend the explanation givem by Chalupa. Chalupa said he didn't have a problem with Torture in some situations, but never claimed that BUSH or his administration was engaged in or supporting torture. Rbob must have assumed this on his own. Chalupa did give examples where torture worked and only gave this because Rbob claimed torture has never worked. Rbob was clearly wrong about this, and Chalupa can site other examples where Torture has worked (in Israel for example). Once again, Chalupa only gave examples in response to Rbob claiming (falsely) that torture has NEVER worked and is just a waste of time. Rbob took this and ran to the extreme claiming that Chalupa thinks it's the weapon of choice by a world super power. Chalupa never said this, nor believes this. Canada is a known safe haven for terrorist's and is hardly a good example of why Iron Fist Laws are not necessary (as stated by Rbob). Canada is a joke as it relates to Counter Terror Efforts and has choosen for many years to ignore terrorists living in their Country (many illegally by the way). Canada never thought it had to worry about Terrorism which is the reason they never cared about it until now. Using Canada as an example of why tough terrorism protection laws are not necessary makes Chalupa laugh his ass off. Canada can't even thwart off Domestic Terrorism. In 1989, Anti-feminist Marc Lepine shot 26 people. 1980: A large explosion significantly damages the Cuban consulate in Montreal 1982 - The anarchist group Direct Action (a.k.a. the Squamish Five) bombs a Litton Industries factory north of Toronto 1985 - Air India flight 182 leaving Montreal's Mirabel International Airport is blown up mid-flight to London There are many, many other examples. Canada got lucky once. Big deal. Oh to the contrary. Hitler conducted a war to conquer countries in order to expand his empire. He purposefully enslaved and murdered millions of innocent people. President Bush conducted a war to liberate innocent people and rid the world of a dangerous dictator. A dictator that had started two wars and purposefully murdered his own people. This comparison by Rbob would be like comparing a criminal that raided a home for the purpose of murdering its innocent occupants to obtain their possessions and the police raiding a home to capture that criminal. Anyone who compares Bush to Hitler is so far to the left, that they aren't sure what's real and what is CNN-make-believe anymore. You forgot to mention how brilliant the US Military was. Bush followed the advice of his top Military aides. The Taliban thought after defeating the Soviet Union that they would be able to put up a good fight against the US. The US learned this trick from History and found that the best way to beat the Taliban was to use the Northern Alliance who wanted to defeat the Taliban anyways. The war was a success and more than 75% of al Qaeda's known leaders and associates have been detained or killed. These include Mohammed Atef, al Qaeda’s senior field commander killed in a bombing raid in Afghanistan; Abu Zubaida, Osama bin Laden’s field commander after the killing of Atef, captured in Pakistan; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the September 11th attacks, captured in Pakistan; Ramzi Binalshibh, a coordinator of the September 11th attacks, captured in Pakistan; Hambali, top strategist for al Qaeda's associate group Jemaah Islamiah in Southeast Asia, captured in Thailand; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al Qaeda’s chief of operations in the Persian Gulf, captured in the United Arab Emirates; Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a suspect in the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, captured in Pakistan; and Abu Issa al–Hindi, a central planner of detailed reconnaissance of American financial institutions, captured in Britain. I call this success. You, as a Liberal, fail to see the light. Let me turn it on for you. Oh, so now evidence is not needed to link Bush to ordering Torture since Hitler denied ordering the death of Jews? By the way, there was some evidence linking Hitler even though they tried to destroy and did destroy much of it. Once again, your comparing Bush to Hitler is an outrage and no logical person would believe such erroneous ideas. One would think you must also believe in U.F.O's invading earth.....Oh never mind. Has Rbob ever taken Basic Math? It has been 5 years since a Terror attack on US Soil. If the Liberals were correct in saying that hundreds or thousands more terrorists would rise up and attack the US if we went into Iraq, then the US must be doing a great job in preventing these attacks. If there had been 1 or more attacks, then you would be using THAT as evidence the war in Iraq was causing attacks and that Bush was unable to protect against further attacks. Since we have had no attacks it seems logical that Bush has done a good job at protecting the country. It's like hiring someone to protect your shop against theft and then after 5 years of no theft's telling the person they didn't do a good job because someone could steal something later in the future. There is nothing more that Bush could do that would please Rbob and the other Liberals since no matter what happens (or doesn't for that matter) the Liberals will claim we are less safe today under George Bush. Iraq violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years and never provided evidence of the destruction of WMD's that Iraq previously admitted to having. With the information we had at the time, going into Iraq was the right decision. The majority of America and Congress also agreed at that time. I guess we forgot to ask Rbob if it was the right thing to do. The US has made many Terrorist arrest and prevented many terrorist attacks since 9/11. Canada stopped one, barely, and as I said earlier is a safe haven for terrorists and has been for a long time. If terrorists wanted to, they could blow the hell out of Canada. Stop feeling so warm and fuzzy because Canada stopped 1 attack. Canada couldn't even prevent the bombing of a Starbucks because it wasn't in French. I have corrected Rbob and hopefully he will stop making up words for Chalupa and might even read what Chalupa posts. Sure they're irrelavent. Since Chalupa proved your facts wrong, that makes them "Tiny Irrelavent Details". I'm sure if you proved my facts wrong they would be GIANT ATROCITIES. Hard to argue with that kind of logic, and even harder to debate. Who ever said the purpose was to prosecute a terrorist? Pay attention Rbob! The purpose is to gather information that could save lives. Once again, before you once again try to change or add words to my statements, it is *my* *opinion* that in come cases, i'm not bothered by these terrorists (who torture and chop the heads off of innocent people) being tortured (and once again, understand only certain types of torture, mostly less physical types) for the good of the many. It's just my opinion and i'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion on this. Read above where I describe the 75% caught or killed. Catching Osama is not the only answer to stopping Terrorism as I'm sure Rbob is intelligent enough to understand that someone else would quickly step up to take Osama's place. It would be nice to capture Osama, and we are certainly trying our best to do so. Do you really believe that Bush wouldn't catch him if there was any possible way he could at this point? You realize how good that would make him look? You really think Bush isn't giving it every effort? I don't care HOW Liberal you are! If you believe this, then you have other issues that Chalupa can't help you with. If you want to start a seperate debate about torture, be my guest. You seem to just keep restating your opinion on this, and i've stated mine. What more can I say on this? Now you're just repeating yourself, and I could cut and paste the above responses, but i'll just leave it at that. It's a five year period, and Liberals claimed all along that we would see these attacks on US soil which never happened. Now, since they see they were wrong, the easiest way to recover is to shift the claim to pointing out attacks outside the Country. Even Bush said we would take the war to them, and we all knew there would be fighting. We would rather fight on their own soil and with the Military.....not innocent women and children civilians that the terrorists like to kill. If Rbob likes debates he will win, perhaps he should try to find a subject he can win at? Rbob seems to enjoy way too many debate topics in one debate. Maybe Rbob should start seperate debates on the other issues he has opinions on?
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 29, 2006 22:08:59 GMT -8
I hardly think that counts as an act of terrorism, at least not in the context that the majority of people today thinks of terrorism. Not to mention all the countless shootings that have occured in the U.S over the decades. And if you say it is terrorism because Lepine was anti-feminist then all the murders based solely on race should be counted as terrorist acts too. Hmmm...got quite a number of those haven't you guys down in the states....
I actually agree with you on this point Chalupa, I think the mission in Afghanistan has been a success overall, at least to this point and time so far it has accomplished most of what they set out to achieve. As for Bin Laden, well he cannot hide forever, and if he can, he certainly cannot live forever.
Ok so either the U.S. was successful in preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, or the liberals were wrong. As a counter-point to the latter, Bush was most definitely wrong about the WMD (at least to this point and time there has been 0 evidence of them) In the case of the latter, the two points are evened out by the other. It doesn't matter if they "claimed" they had some in the past. None have been found, and no evidence of having them either.
p.s. one person talking in third person is enough chalupa... : P
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 30, 2006 9:26:49 GMT -8
It almost sounds like you're not sure if they ever had them. I hope you're not saying that, because this isn't even a disputed fact. You do know that he used them on his own people right? There is no evidence that he destroyed them or got rid of them (which he was required to do per the UN resolution). Not finding something hardly means it doesn't exist. So knowing for an absolute fact that he had them at one point, used them on his own people, refused to provide the evidence of where they were or that they were destroyed, Bush was supposed to leave him alone just in case once we got there, we couldn't find them? I think not, and today they are either still in Iraq in the place they were hidden all along, or in another Country where he may have moved them just before the war.
I'm curious, are you then claiming that he destroyed them? Or are you just being a Liberal saying "Well, since we can't find them, nothing else matters"? Or are you actually saying that he never had them? If you're like most Liberals, you won't give a straight answer, but i'm very curious to see your response.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 30, 2006 10:35:20 GMT -8
What im saying is that, one of the points Bush used to get the approval of stepping into Iraq was the presence and threat of WDM. When the UN inspectors searched Iraq for these WDM, they wern't found. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the inspectors also find that Iraq had few facilities capable of creating WMD? I may be wrong on that point, but im too lazy to look it up. Did Saddam have WMD, at one point in time yes of course it can't be disputed, he used them on the Kurds in Iraq. But there is a significant time period between when we know he had them and when USA entered Iraq. Did he destroy them? hide them? sell them? I don't know. All i'm saying is he had them before, but when US stepped in, they didn't have them anymore, and I don't know what he did with them. But I do think that whatever did happen to those WMD, happened before Bush used that to get into Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 30, 2006 12:30:30 GMT -8
What im saying is that, one of the points Bush used to get the approval of stepping into Iraq was the presence and threat of WDM. When the UN inspectors searched Iraq for these WDM, they wern't found. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the inspectors also find that Iraq had few facilities capable of creating WMD? I may be wrong on that point, but im too lazy to look it up. Did Saddam have WMD, at one point in time yes of course it can't be disputed, he used them on the Kurds in Iraq. But there is a significant time period between when we know he had them and when USA entered Iraq. Did he destroy them? hide them? sell them? I don't know. All i'm saying is he had them before, but when US stepped in, they didn't have them anymore, and I don't know what he did with them. But I do think that whatever did happen to those WMD, happened before Bush used that to get into Iraq. One thing I have noticed is that most people who believe the war in Iraq was not justified simply don't know the facts (probably because they watch Liberal Media) and make their judgements based on these inaccuracies. Maybe once you know the facts Rabid, you will change your view of the war. You may not like war, or you might even decide that you would have handled things differently if you were the President, but I think knowing the true facts you would hesitate to say the war in Iraq was flat out wrong. Try to have an open mind and not just listen to your Liberal friends for a minute. In 1998, Iraq kicked the UN Weapons inspectors out of Iraq and Iraq said they would never be invited back. Sadaam also said they didn't have to follow any of the U.N. Resolutions since in his view the U.S. had broken international law. Unfortunately, our current Liberal President, Bill Clinton, did nothing about this and most likely Sadaam knew he could walk on us during this period. In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation". The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained. Without it, they could still do it, but it would take them years. Once Bush took office, and started doing what Clinton *should* have done, he put pressure on Iraq to allow the inspectors back. After a military build up around Iraq, in late 2002, Saddam Hussein, in a letter to Hans Blix, invited UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory." At this point we know that Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors and would not let them search restricted area's. We also know there were four years where they did not allow any inspectors in Iraq. Between 1991 and 1998 while there were inspections, Iraq was found to be attempting to, and/or continuing to create weapons of mass destruction. (I can provide you with the details if you wish them, plus any links) Iraq has also learned how to work around the inspections and had four years while there were NO inspections to find ways to hide these weapons. Everyone should at least agree that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement during this period. Resolution 1441 authorized new inspections in Iraq. The carefully-worded U.N. resolution put the burden on Iraq, not U.N. inspectors, to prove that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. We all know that Iraq never did provide this proof. According to reports from the previous U.N. inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for. In fact, in 1995, Iraq told the United Nations that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles, but that all of it had been destroyed. Robert Gallucci, who was on of the inspectors in Iraq said, "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Even if one was to believe that Iraq had destroyed all of their WMDs, which is very unlikely, Iraq had stated time and time again that it would continue to build weapons and they would have continued until they did. Now some might argue it's best to wait until attacked and then attack back. Others are of the opinion that we should eliminate a threat before they have the ability to carry out the first attack. Although this is a difference of opinion, it does not meet the criterea to call the war unjust. So did Iraq have WMD's at the start of the war? Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late summer 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. The former number two in the Iraqi Air Force stated that with the arrival of inspectors on November 1st, he took the occasion of Syria’s broken dam and made an “air bridge”, bringing by air and by ground, moved them into cargo aircraft and moved them into Syria. He also claimed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s attempt to use 20 tons of chemical weapons in Amman, Jordan and kill 80,000 civilians came from a large cache in Syria, originally transported from Iraq. Another Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti who defected before the 1991 Gulf War, claimed in 2006 that weapons are in Syria because of long military deals going back to the late 1980’s, where contingency plans would be activated if either country were threatened. In one of the Saddam tapes released in 2006 of a conversation with one of his aides about UN inspectors, Saddam is asked, "Where was the nuclear material transported to?" The aide then says, "A number of them were transported out of Iraq."The aide was referring to the 1990s-era UN inspections of Iraq, in which the IAEA confiscated fissionable material from Iraq. Some reports claim Saddam discusses WMD and links to terrorists on these tapes. US Congressman Peter Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining 35,000 boxes of documents on the Internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents. The U.S. government is in the process of releasing these documents called the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The Washington Times editorialized on a moment on the "Saddam tapes" that revealed "Saddam was actively working on a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation. This is particularly worrisome because of the date of the conversation: It took place in 2000, nearly five years after Iraq's nuclear programs were thought to have stopped." There were other people who claimed that Iraq did not have weapons, and that he had destroyed them all, so there is definately conflicting information. Everyone will see the facts differently and come their own conclusions. Most of you, probably never heard many of these facts because you won't find it on the Liberal news. If anyone challenges any of the facts I have presented, PLEASE challenge any of this, and I will provide the proof. At the end of the day, Bush had to make a decision based on some hard cold facts, and then other information that was not as clear. We do know: * Iraq did not cooperate with the inspectors and did not let them search certain area's that they requested to * For four years, Iraq did not allow any inspections * Iraq said they did not have to follow and of the U.N. Resolutions * Iraq could not provide proof as to where the WMDS were * Saddam was able to build up significant weaponry, including a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons grade nuclear material, under the noses of those inspectors * Inspections were not working And the other evidence could be disputed back and forth. Just based on the above information, we were totally justified to go to war with Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by rbobatar on Oct 1, 2006 21:32:28 GMT -8
AS REGARDS TORTURE RBOB FIRST WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SINCE YOU HAVE NOT CLAIMED BUSH OR HIS ADMINISTRATION WERE ENGAGING IN OR SUPPORTING TORTURE, THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. AND RBOB WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADMIT THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS INVOLVED IN TORTURE SINCE THIS IS PLAINLY UNDENIABLE. SO YES RBOB DID ASSUME THAT THEY DO SUPPORT TORTURE SINCE IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THEY DONT EVEN TRY TO HIDE. ALSO RBOB WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID TORTURE "NEVER" WORKED. RBOB BELIEVES RBOB'S EXACT WORDS WERE "THE INFORMATION ACQUIRED THROUGH TORTURE IS INCREDIBLY UNRELIABLE ... A STUDY DONE ON TORTURE TO SEE IF IT WORKS DONE BY THE CENTRE FOR THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE STATES "NEARLY EVERY CLIENT AT THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE WHEN SUBJECTED TO TORTURE, CONFESSED TO A CRIME THEY DID NOT COMMIT, GAVE UP EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION, OR SUPPLIED NAMES OF INNOCENT FRIENDS OR COLLEAGUES TO THEIR TORTURES"." WHEN YOU PROVIDED ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT TORTURE DOES WORK IT DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE DEBATE. ALSO JOHN MCCAIN WOULD NOT BE HAPPY THAT YOU ARE USING HIS NAME IN A DEBATE IN SUPPORT OF TORTURE WHEN YOU MUST OBVIOUSLY KNOW HIS POSITION ON THE SUBJECT. AND ALSO SINCE YOU DO SUPPORT THE USE OF TORTURE AND ALSO SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO TAKE THE LOGICAL NEXT STEP THAT YOU DO SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS USE OF TORTURE. CANADA IS NOT A HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS AND THIS IS SIMPLY AN IDEA CREATED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, TO USE CANADA AS A SCAPEGOAT FOR ITS OWN SHORTCOMINGS OR ALL YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT CANADA RBOB WOULD LIKE SOME SUBSTANTIATON OF YOUR CLAIMS OUTSIDE SINCE YOU DO NOT SEEM TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTRY'S TERROR POLICIES. THIS IS ALSO THE CASE WHEN YOU CLAIM CANADA "BARELY" STOPPED THE TERRORIST ATTACK. CANADA WAS NOT LUCKY IT WAS GOOD POLICE WORK, NO TORTURE INVOLVED. YOU ALSO SEEMED TO HAVE GONE RIGHT AHEAD AND MISUNDERSTOOOD RBOBS BUSH-HITLER COMPARISON SINCE YOU SPEAK OF GERMANY 1939 WHEN RBOB MAKES IT CLEAR IN THE EXAMPLE HE WAS REFERRING TO GERMANY 1933-36 DOMESTICALLY AND NOT EXPANSIVELY. ON ANOTHER NOTE CNN IS ACTUALLY A CONSIDERABLY CONSERVATIVE NEWS SOURCE. YOU ARE SIMPLY VIEWING THE MEDIA THROUGH AN EXTREMELY AMERICAN LENS SINCE IF YOU WOULD READ A NEWS SOURCE IN SAY ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THEY ARE ON THE WHOLE QUITE UNIFORMALLY "LIBERAL" IN COMPARISON. EITHER THE ENTIRE WORLD IS LIBERAL SCUM OR MAYBE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS IT WRONG. RBOB AGREES THE AMERICAN MEDIA IS FAILING YOU BUT IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG WAY. YOUR MEDIA IS THE REASON THERE WAS SO MUCH POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ SINCE WAHT THEY DO IS NOT ACTUAL REPORTING BUT SIMPLY READING THE PRESS RELEASES HANDED TO THEM BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND TOUTING THEM AS FACT. AS FOR AFGHANISTAN YOU ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO ADDRESS RBOBS CONCERNS SINCE RBOB NEVER SAID THAT AFGHANISTAN HAD NOT BEEN A SUCCESS, BUT THAT IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLY BUMBLED ONE AND THE SITUATION THERE IS UNRAVELLING AS WE SPEAK AS ONE CAN SEE BY THE "LIBERAL" NEWS EMANATING FROM THERE. RBOB SIMPLY WONDERS WHY YOU HAVE CAPTURED 75% OF THEM, NOT 100% AND USED THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE WITH 10,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHILE SENDING 140,000 TO IRAQ. AFGHANISTAN IS WHERE TERRORISM IS IS IT NOT? HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS DISCREPANCY. ONCE AGAIN AS FOR POINT NUMBER 4 YOU FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN GEORGE BUSH AND HITLER IN REGARDS TO TORTURE THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO ILLUSTRATE IN AN ATTENTION GRABBNIG WAY THAT YOU THINK BUSH IS LESS GUILTY OF TORTURE CRIMES IF IT IS HIS SECRETARY OF DEFENSES SIGNATURE ON THE MEMO ORDERING IT AND NOT HIS OWN. AS FOR THE FACT TTHERE ARE NO TERROR ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES RBOB SAID THREE YEARS AS OPPOSED TO FIVE SINCE YOU CLAIMED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ THAT LIBERALS SAID MANY TERRORISTS WOULD RISE UP AND ATTACK AMERICA AND SINCE THE WAR IN IRAQ THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED IN THREE YEARS SINCE THAT INVASION BUT THANKS FOR MISUNDERSTANDING AND THEN BASING AN INSULT ON YOUR MISCONCEPTION, RBOB WILL TRY AND BE MORE CLEAR FOR YOU NEXT TIME. AS FOR AMERICA BEING SAFER AS A RESULT OF THE IRAQ WAR RBOB IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSED YOU ARE MAKING THIS JUDGEMENT ONLY DAYS FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF A REPORT BY THE US GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. UNLESS OF COURSE YOU BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT TO BE TOO LIBERAL TO BE DEEMED RELIABLE. www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-15-bush_x.htmALSO YOU CONTINUALLY IGNORE THE REFERENCES RBOB HAS MADE TO THOUSANDS OF TERROR ATTACKS ON US INTERESTS ABROAD AS EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR. DO YOU NOT VALUE THE LIVES OF THE 3000 OR SO AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS YOU SO NOBLY LIBERATED? WERE THEIR DEATHS WORTH THE PERCEIVED SAFETY YOU CLAIM TO HAVE GARNERED FROM THE INVASION (DESPITE THE FACT THAT EVEN THE PENTAGON SAYS THIS IS NOT THE CASE). WELL FIRSTLY AS FOR POINT NUMBER 6 YOU SEEM TO HAVE ONCE AGAIN IGNORED THE PREMISE. RBOB WILL NOT DENY IRAQS POOR RECORD BUT CITING UN RESOLUTIONS AS EVIDENCE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HIPOCRISY (SEE RESOLUTION 242). HOWEVER RBOB WONDERS WHY , IN THE MONTHS BEFORE THE WAR, THE WARHAD TO GO AHEAD DESPITE FULL ACCESS TO IRAQI MILITARY FACILITIES FOR WEAPONS INSPECTORS AND COMPLETE COOPERATION ON THE PART OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMNENT. IT WAS AT THIS POINT IN THE RUSH TO WAR THAT IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND SHOUDL HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE (AND WAS TO EVERYONE OUTSIDE THE US, HENCE AMERICAS PROUD COALITION OF THE WILLING) BUT THANKS TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA YOU LAMBAST IT WAS NOT. ANYWAY RBOB ASSUEMD THAT SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS OF TERRORISTS WOULD BE A SIGN OF SUCCESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR SINCE THE COURT OF LAW IS GENERALLY AGREED TO BE THE PLACE WHERE SUCH MATTERS ARE HANDLED AMONG CIVILIZED PEOPLE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MILLENNIA. OF COURSE GEORGE BUSH AND HITLER HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON BY DISAGREEING AND SAYING THAT CAMPS OUTSIDE THE LAW ARE WHERE JUSTICE CAN BE FOUND. QUALIFICATIONS TO TORTURE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS MORALLY DEPRAVED AND YOU CAN CALL IT WHAT YOU LIKE BUT IT IS STILL TORTURE. AS FOR YOUR OPINION ON TORTURE THAT EVEN IF IT CAN POSSIBLY SAVE LIVES DESPITE ALL THE NEGATIVE RAMMIFICATIONS IT IS A POORLY INFORMED OPINION WHICH IS NOT ONE ANY RATIONAL INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE. THE TERRORISTS ARE EVIL BUT NOW LOWERING TO THEIR LEVEL IS NOT GOING TO HELP SINCE THIS WAR, THE WAR ON TERROR, IS A WAR OF HEARTS AND MINDS AND AS COLEN POWELL SAID "THE WORLD IS BEGINNING TO DOUBT THE MORAL BASIS OF OUR WAR ON TERROR". TORTURE IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THIS, YOU ARE BLIND IF YOU CANNOT SEE THIS. AS FOR THE 75% CAUGHT OR KILLED AS YOU SAID SOMEONE CAN EASILY COME UP AND REPLACE THEM AS ITS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER TO STOPPING TERRORISM. SO HOW DO YOU STOP TERRORISM? THINK WHY DOES TERRORISM START? OH WAIT YOU SAID YOU DONT GIVE A DAMN. AND IF BUSH REALLY CARED ABOUT THE WAR ON TERROR THERE WOULD BE 140,000 SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN AND NOT IN IRAQ. THE WHOLE POINT RBOB GOT INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE WAS THAT HE ACTUALLY FOUND SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS TORTURE IN THIS MODERN CONTEXT AND THATS WHY HE KEEPS RESTATING HIS POSITION BECAUSE HE WANTS YOU TO SAY YOU WERE WRONG BECAUSE IT IS THE WRONG OPINION ASK ANY SANE RATIONAL PERSON. FINALLY RBOB WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHATS THE WORST THING A TERROR ATTACK COULD BBE? IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF A TERROR ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL WORTH THE 100,000 IRAQIS YOU LIBERATED WHO HAVE DIED OR THE 3,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO HAVE DIED OR THE QUITE LITERALLY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT TO PREVENT IT. WHAT IF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WAS PUT INTO AMERICAN HEALTHCARE, OR AID TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, OR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, IMAGINE WHAT DIFFERENCE THAT COULD MAKE. YUOR FEAR OF TERRORISM IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL AND THE COSTS OF FIGHTING IT ARE NOT WORTH A FRACTION OF WHAT YOU HAVE SPENT ON IT. ANYWAY RBOB WOULD LIKE YOU TO POINT OUT EXACTLY WHICH FACTS HE HAS CITED THAT WERE WRONG. ALSO ON THE NOTE OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MOST OF THE EVIDENCE FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WAS PURELY FABRICATED IN THE HOPES OF DRUMMING UP THE CASE FOR WAR. NOBODY AT THIS STAGE DENIES SADDAM DID COMPLY WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS WEAPONS AND IT IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY ANY QUANTITY COULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO SYRIA. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stmAS HANS BLIX SAID IF ONLY YOU HAD WAITED THEY COULD HAVE PROVED THERE WERE NO WEAPONS THER . WHY COULD AMERICA NOT WAIT TWO MONTHS? AMERICAN TROOPS WERE ON THE BORDER IN THREE COUNTRIES, SPY PLANES FLYING OVER AND INSPECTORS GIVEN ACCESS TO ALL THE SITES. THIS RUSH TO WAR THE "MUSHROOM CLOUD" THREAT THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT WAS SIMPLY A LIE SO THAT AMERICA COULD GET TO THE OIL AND THAT IS WHYT HE INVASION TOOK PLACE SO RAPIDLY, BECAUSE THE WHOLE JUSTIFICATION WOULD HAVE FALLEN APART HAD THEY LET THE INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOB. ON ANOTHER NOTE THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS BEEN LOST. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stmREAD THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Oct 1, 2006 23:59:03 GMT -8
Just a short note so you have even more to respond to than just rbob's post.
What is your opinion on Bob Woodward's book suggesting that Bush is still lying to the people and that US Troops endure up to 800 attacks per week or roughly 4 attacks per hour.
(And a bullsh*t response impuning his character won't count, neither will classifying him as a liberal or having an agenda)
Other note: One of the main reasons there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil(other than the US is doing a super duper job at airline screening(sarcasm alert)) is that terrorists just have to go outside their homes now to attack US people. Then they get to kill americans and not have to go through any security checks to get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by rbobatar on Oct 2, 2006 0:52:21 GMT -8
ALSO WORTH NOTING YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE US LEARNED FROM HISTORY IN FIGHTING THE TALIBAN BELIES A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT SINCE THEY WERE BOTH LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICTS, AND YOU GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TALIBAN ACTUALLY DEFEATED THE SOVIETS BUT CASUALTY RATES FOR ISAF FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN ARE ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THEY WERE AT THIS SAME STAGE OF THE WAR IN THE 1980S. THE US HAS LEARNED NOTHING, THE TALIBAN IS ON THE RESURGENT AND THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE HAS DEVOLVED INTO A GROUP OF BICKERING WARLORDS. IF THE WAR WAS SUCH A SUCCESS WHY IS THE TALIBAN STILL SUCH A POWERFUL FORCE IN THE SOUTH OF THE COUNTRY.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Oct 2, 2006 15:26:27 GMT -8
AS REGARDS TORTURE RBOB FIRST WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SINCE YOU HAVE NOT CLAIMED BUSH OR HIS ADMINISTRATION WERE ENGAGING IN OR SUPPORTING TORTURE, THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. AND RBOB WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADMIT THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS INVOLVED IN TORTURE SINCE THIS IS PLAINLY UNDENIABLE. SO YES RBOB DID ASSUME THAT THEY DO SUPPORT TORTURE SINCE IT IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THEY DONT EVEN TRY TO HIDE. If this is plainly undeniable, then please provide us with proof, other than Rbob's opinion. Provide the link. ALSO RBOB WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID TORTURE "NEVER" WORKED. RBOB BELIEVES RBOB'S EXACT WORDS WERE "THE INFORMATION ACQUIRED THROUGH TORTURE IS INCREDIBLY UNRELIABLE ... A STUDY DONE ON TORTURE TO SEE IF IT WORKS DONE BY THE CENTRE FOR THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE STATES "NEARLY EVERY CLIENT AT THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE WHEN SUBJECTED TO TORTURE, CONFESSED TO A CRIME THEY DID NOT COMMIT, GAVE UP EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION, OR SUPPLIED NAMES OF INNOCENT FRIENDS OR COLLEAGUES TO THEIR TORTURES"." You were clearly using the argument that Torture doesn't work as one of your validations against the use of Torture. Otherwise, you would not quote a study that makes it sound worthless. Now that I have provided you with examples of Torture working, you are denying that was your argument or at least denying that you actually "said" that torture didn't work. Now it sounds like your saying that Torture doesn't work, but even if it did..... Why not just say "In some cases Torture works, but i'm against it because...." You are trying to debate like a true Liberal by staking a claim and then denying you said or meant that if it no longer supports your position. Just so we are all very clear, could you please state if you think Torture works or not? This would clear up a lot of confusion. WHEN YOU PROVIDED ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT TORTURE DOES WORK IT DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE DEBATE. Of course not, since it doesn't support your position. If it had, then it would add everything to the debate. Hey, at least be fair. So far everytime I have proven you wrong on something you later claim it as minor details, or not adding anything to the debate. ALSO JOHN MCCAIN WOULD NOT BE HAPPY THAT YOU ARE USING HIS NAME IN A DEBATE IN SUPPORT OF TORTURE WHEN YOU MUST OBVIOUSLY KNOW HIS POSITION ON THE SUBJECT. My goal wasn't to make John McCain happy, but to prove a point. AND ALSO SINCE YOU DO SUPPORT THE USE OF TORTURE AND ALSO SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO TAKE THE LOGICAL NEXT STEP THAT YOU DO SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS USE OF TORTURE. If I found out the administration was using it under circumstances I agreed with, I would support it. If I found out they stopped a major attack and saved thousands or millions of lives, you're darn right I would support it. But you're wrong to say that the Bush administration is supporting Torture when they have stated that they don't. CANADA IS NOT A HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS AND THIS IS SIMPLY AN IDEA CREATED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, TO USE CANADA AS A SCAPEGOAT FOR ITS OWN SHORTCOMINGS OR ALL YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT CANADA RBOB WOULD LIKE SOME SUBSTANTIATON OF YOUR CLAIMS OUTSIDE SINCE YOU DO NOT SEEM TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTRY'S TERROR POLICIES. Thank You for the opportunity to prove you wrong but once again. I can't help but expect your response to be a) It's not important anymore or b) I never meant that or some other response taking away from the fact that you are wrong. But here you go: Bill Bauer - former member of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board when asked "A lot of people are saying that Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists. Do you believe that? " Answer: Yes...I think many countries look upon Canada as being a welcoming country for terrorists, war criminals and so on. I don't think it is a deliberate policy on the part of Canada. I think it is the result of a series of shortcomings in the system that enables people to slip across the border through any port of entry, establish a case -- particularly those who wish to make a refugee claim -- and then more or less disappear forever, in some cases, or in some cases until the hearing, or until they are turned down, or until they are accepted. And while they are doing this, they are paid welfare, they're paid housing, they're looked after legally, medically. Quoted from an interview on PBS - Link: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/canada.htmlPrime Minister Stephen Harper - “We need to better ensure that Canada does more to prevent terrorism at home,” the Prime Minister said. “Although we witnessed how successfully our security and intelligence services work together two weeks ago, we need to do more to protect our people and our institutions.” “Canada can choose to ignore terrorism, but terrorism will not ignore Canada,” the Prime Minister concluded. Thanks Canada. Source: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_17/ai_80900390Source: Fox News www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91884,00.html Source: Seattle Weekly www.seattleweekly.com/news/0001/features-berger.phpI could go on...but I think my point is proven (although you will most likely brush this off) YOU ALSO SEEMED TO HAVE GONE RIGHT AHEAD AND MISUNDERSTOOOD RBOBS BUSH-HITLER COMPARISON SINCE YOU SPEAK OF GERMANY 1939 WHEN RBOB MAKES IT CLEAR IN THE EXAMPLE HE WAS REFERRING TO GERMANY 1933-36 DOMESTICALLY AND NOT EXPANSIVELY. There is no Bush-Hitler comparison and *that* is what I was pointing out. ON ANOTHER NOTE CNN IS ACTUALLY A CONSIDERABLY CONSERVATIVE NEWS SOURCE. YOU ARE SIMPLY VIEWING THE MEDIA THROUGH AN EXTREMELY AMERICAN LENS SINCE IF YOU WOULD READ A NEWS SOURCE IN SAY ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THEY ARE ON THE WHOLE QUITE UNIFORMALLY "LIBERAL" IN COMPARISON. EITHER THE ENTIRE WORLD IS LIBERAL SCUM OR MAYBE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS IT WRONG. RBOB AGREES THE AMERICAN MEDIA IS FAILING YOU BUT IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG WAY. YOUR MEDIA IS THE REASON THERE WAS SO MUCH POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ SINCE WAHT THEY DO IS NOT ACTUAL REPORTING BUT SIMPLY READING THE PRESS RELEASES HANDED TO THEM BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND TOUTING THEM AS FACT. Rbob wrong again. And once I prove you wrong again I'm sure you will once again down play it. CNN founder Ted Turner, a current board member of CNN parent company Time Warner funded a NARAL (Pro Life) ad that attacked Republicans. NARAL's media company, Struble Eichenbaum Communications, boasted that "Our record defeating Republican incumbents is unmatched," and has deep connections to prominent liberal Democratic Senators, including Patty Murray, who says, "…they'll help you win." Example 2: CNN's Aaron Brown set up an interview segment by tagging Shelby Steele as "a conservative," but simply describing Richard Cohen as "a columnist," Steele called him on it, forcing Brown to concede that Cohen is a liberal. Example 3: During the Bush / Kerry election, when running polls regarding who was leading the race, If the candidate who is ahead is John Kerry, the headline is "Kerry Leads Bush." If the candidate who is ahead is George W. Bush, the headline is "Bush Apparently Leads Kerry." Source: CNN Link: www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/prez.poll/index.htmlLink: www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/elect04.prez.poll/index.htmlAnd if your still not sure, how about Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Anderson Cooper who are all Liberals. AS FOR AFGHANISTAN YOU ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO ADDRESS RBOBS CONCERNS SINCE RBOB NEVER SAID THAT AFGHANISTAN HAD NOT BEEN A SUCCESS, BUT THAT IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLY BUMBLED ONE AND THE SITUATION THERE IS UNRAVELLING AS WE SPEAK AS ONE CAN SEE BY THE "LIBERAL" NEWS EMANATING FROM THERE. RBOB SIMPLY WONDERS WHY YOU HAVE CAPTURED 75% OF THEM, NOT 100% AND USED THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE WITH 10,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHILE SENDING 140,000 TO IRAQ. AFGHANISTAN IS WHERE TERRORISM IS IS IT NOT? HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS DISCREPANCY. So now it's a Success? Well, i'm glad Rbob finally is seeing the light! Why not 100% you ask? Because in a prefect world, we would capture 100%. I suppose the Liberals would have caught 100% if they were on the job right? Oh, that's right, Clinton *was* on the job and did go after Osama. Well, just sort of. He launched a couple of missles but never really did crap even after they attacked the World Trade Center (the first time). The Republicans had to clean up later as we all well know. Clinton even had an opportunity to take out Osama and decided against it, resulting in the 9/11 attacks (and proving further what bad things will happen with a Liberal in office). And to answer your question about the different troop levels between Iraq and Afghanistan, I would hope you could understand this on your own. But if you can't, it's because Iraq is a different war, with different weapons and required more troops than Afghanistan. Plus, using the Northern Alliance WAS a leasson from History because the US knew that the Soviets couldn't do the job, mainly because they didn't know the tough terrain. The Nothern Alliance did, and with the provided air support they were able to get the job done (which you now seem to admit). AS FOR THE FACT TTHERE ARE NO TERROR ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES RBOB SAID THREE YEARS AS OPPOSED TO FIVE SINCE YOU CLAIMED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ THAT LIBERALS SAID MANY TERRORISTS WOULD RISE UP AND ATTACK AMERICA AND SINCE THE WAR IN IRAQ THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED IN THREE YEARS SINCE THAT INVASION BUT THANKS FOR MISUNDERSTANDING AND THEN BASING AN INSULT ON YOUR MISCONCEPTION, RBOB WILL TRY AND BE MORE CLEAR FOR YOU NEXT TIME. I wanted to be fair in that Bush has protected us for the last 5 years. Of course *you* would do the math differently. AS FOR AMERICA BEING SAFER AS A RESULT OF THE IRAQ WAR RBOB IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSED YOU ARE MAKING THIS JUDGEMENT ONLY DAYS FOLLOWING THE RELEASE OF A REPORT BY THE US GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. UNLESS OF COURSE YOU BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT TO BE TOO LIBERAL TO BE DEEMED RELIABLE. www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-15-bush_x.htmThis link talks about a new terror bill. What are you talking about? YOU CONTINUALLY IGNORE THE REFERENCES RBOB HAS MADE TO THOUSANDS OF TERROR ATTACKS ON US INTERESTS ABROAD AS EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR. DO YOU NOT VALUE THE LIVES OF THE 3000 OR SO AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS YOU SO NOBLY LIBERATED? WERE THEIR DEATHS WORTH THE PERCEIVED SAFETY YOU CLAIM TO HAVE GARNERED FROM THE INVASION (DESPITE THE FACT THAT EVEN THE PENTAGON SAYS THIS IS NOT THE CASE). And you have continually ignored what I said in response. The President is taking this war to the soil of the Terrorists. We know this war will be fought, and we would rather fight this war outside of US soil. At this point, your posts are too long to respond to everything, so I must cut out the rest and either respond to it in another post, or wait for your response to this one. Try not to put so many issues in one post because it takes hours to respond to your lengthy responses!
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Oct 2, 2006 22:50:32 GMT -8
short post to say, post on.
|
|
|
Post by rbobatar on Oct 8, 2006 1:39:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Oct 13, 2006 18:01:11 GMT -8
Your so called "evidence" is to quote the opinions of Liberals. I could lower myself to posting url's to conservatives and calling that evidence but I won't. One of your links even has the word "opinion" in it.
Plus you had no response to the other topics I owned you on.
At least I gave url's to unbiased articles and not editorials written by stupid liberals.
Looks like this debate has come to an end. I accept your defeat.
Next?
|
|